Posted on 11/29/2010 4:25:59 AM PST by marktwain
AMARILLO, TEXAS -- As it stands right now you must be 21 in order to get a concealed carry hand gun license, but two teenagers in Lubbock want to change that.
They think if you are 18 years old you should have all the same rights as people who are 21. So they took the 32 year old laws to federal court, claiming the current laws are illegally restricting their rights to carry hand guns.
And people we spoke with agree saying if you can serve in the military then you should be able to carry a gun.
"These guys are going to fight for out country that's a lot of responsibility in the in the training in the criteria that's going to have to be established for those guys carrying the fire arm, so you know i'm not against it," said Steve Camarta the Amarillo Gun Club president.
We also spoke to a few people off camera who disagree saying they're actually against people have guns all-together. And that only law enforcement should be allowed to carry weapons. .
No court hearings have been set yet in the cases.
Agreed. When you’re an adult, you should be able to defend yourself and a law that prevents it, is unconstitutional.
If your life is in danger because of the scum in our society, you should be able to carry a gun.
And you should be able to drink a beer.
Who set this arbitrary age of when you become a man?
In 1964 when I was married, I was 20 years old and my mother had to sign for me to be allowed to marry.
My wife was 18 and could sign for herself.
She lets me know that every once in a while when we joke about it.
What??? This reporter found people in Amarillo who thought that no one but LEOs should carry guns? He must have interviewed the local Mexican drug dealers or the old hippies who used to demonstrate against the nuclear trigger plant in Amarillo.
I agree to a point and that point being if your serving in the military/guard/reserves then you should have a right to carry a gun, otherwise wait until your 21.
Looking for my asbestos blanket!
ping
Any age set as the age of majority will be by definition arbitrary. 18 is every bit as arbitrary as 21.
I think the "if you can serve as a soldier you should be able to carry a gun as a civilian" argument isn't a particularly good one.
Soldiers are given extensive training in when (and when not) to use their weapons. Civilians generally receive much less training.
It is not in and of itself unreasonable to assume the extensive training given soldiers would counterbalance to some extent the admitted immaturity of those <21.
I have no dog in this fight, just pointing out that this isn't a particularly logical argument.
Agree. The age of majority should be sync’ed up. It should be either 18 or 21 on all things and not parcelled as it is right now. I vote that it be 18 on all matters.
If you can serve in the military, you should be able to drink beer as well.
I remember in WWII the same argument was going on but at this time it was over buying a bottle of beer.
This article is very misleading. Conceal and carry hasn’t been around for 32 years in Texas, but only about 15 years. Promising not to veto it was one of the things that got W elected governor.
**We also spoke to a few people off camera who disagree saying they’re actually against people have guns all-together. And that only law enforcement should be allowed to carry weapons.**
Ok, so we have group of people pining away for a totalitarian police state. Speechless.
There’s so much that is wrong with Vermont but I always feel a little better when I read about these states with crazy gun laws.
I say this because our society is no longer as rural as it used to be. Kids raised in a gun owning home usually are more responsible than say, an inner city kid who has only seen guns on tv.
Now, if you ratchet down the age to 18, that opens a whole can of worms on what other restrictive measures would be needed to train adequately, those that have zero experience. That increase in restrictiveness would be addressed as answering the maturity issues that will also be raised.
As one poster said, the military trains people, there is no equivalent outside of that in the public domain.
"limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country."
I think that if an 18 yr old has a good CHL trainer, and passes the course--both written and shooting, then he should be allowed to carry.
OTOH--I get aggravated at the thought that we have to jump through so many hoops to exercise our God granted rights.
Guess I'm never satisfied.......
What state was that?
Ex military with proper training should have the right, there are a lot of 18 year old hot heads, and show offs. The 18 year old in the military is trained and has trained supervision with trained eyes watching everyone with a weapon besides in the military they are told when to eat. Sleep, and sh**…. And shoot.
They already tried this with drinking and accidents stats went way up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.